As a Kentucky fan, it'd be bizarre to see him move from the first game on our schedule to the last. He'd be a solid hire there, but I can't help thinking that some of their fans will feel letdown after they got themselves worked up over a broadcaster who never gave them a second look.

Unreal... Bielema to leave Badgers head coaching position. I don't get it. It can't be just for money. Does he really think he can take Arkansas to the heights at which Barry Alvarez delivered the Badgers to him?? Start over sort of thing, make my own mark? He's already made his mark by taking a very strong football program and keeping it strong, stick with it man, make it another dynasty of coaching. Grrrrrr.

And this after Kal (who hates all things Wisconsin football related!) just chimed in at what a great coach Bielema is and the Wisconsin football program. I'm hoping that the Badgers success has been not only (or even primarily) due to the head coaching position, that the managers and back office people are. I think it's a bit of both.

Green Bay can go fuck themselves. The rest of Wisconsin is fortunately not ruined by their unearthly, fungus laden taint.

Wisconsin will probably be an okay program - but just okay. They really do need a good coach to consistently elevate them; they don't have the tradition or the talent pool to compete regularly. Folks like Bielema are going to get players like Russell Wilson. That's not going to happen all the time.

Green Bay can go fuck themselves. The rest of Wisconsin is fortunately not ruined by their unearthly, fungus laden taint.

Wisconsin will probably be an okay program - but just okay. They really do need a good coach to consistently elevate them; they don't have the tradition or the talent pool to compete regularly. Folks like Bielema are going to get players like Russell Wilson. That's not going to happen all the time.

You are factually wrong about your opinions on Green Bay, but I agree with you on the Badgers. Alvarez was a great college coach who handed the keys over to another really good one. It's not exactly the same as the Bellotti to Kelly situation, but it's similar enough in that a guy looking to move on to AD took care in making that transition.

I would say Wisconsin might stay tough, but it's only likely if they get another really good hire. For all their success over the last 20 years or so, they still have nowhere near the clout that Ohio State and Michigan do.

The Bielema hire seems like a terrible one. Arkansas needed to go with someone with a dynamic offense to win. Bielema is going to try to play the same game as Alabama and LSU, just without multiple 1st round draft picks starting on both sides of the ball. Somehow I don't think that's going to end well for him. Texas A&M showed what a decent offense can do in the SEC.

Green Bay can go fuck themselves. The rest of Wisconsin is fortunately not ruined by their unearthly, fungus laden taint.

I was giving a tip of the hat to you, Kal, No need to be complete fuckin asshole.. Well, no surprise - that always has been your M.O. (54 warning points proudly advertized above your badger must mean something!)

Ps. just curious, why exactly should the Packers "go fuck themselves" when they can fuck the NFC North instead?!? /cheers.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cheers:' /> 2nd sweep in a row? I doubt it but, make my day Kalbear.

The Bielema hire seems like a terrible one. Arkansas needed to go with someone with a dynamic offense to win. Bielema is going to try to play the same game as Alabama and LSU, just without multiple 1st round draft picks starting on both sides of the ball. Somehow I don't think that's going to end well for him. Texas A&M showed what a decent offense can do in the SEC.

i think that is the plan actually. the blueprint being there and all. there are plenty of boderline three and four stars that can be coached up to play two TE, i-formation football. i despise me some razorbacks but i think it is a good hire. he can certainly pitch making them NFL ready. quite a few badgers o-lineman and RB's have made it to the NFL haven't they?

i think that is the plan actually. the blueprint being there and all. there are plenty of boderline three and four stars that can be coached up to play two TE, i-formation football. i despise me some razorbacks but i think it is a good hire. he can certainly pitch making them NFL ready. quite a few badgers o-lineman and RB's have made it to the NFL haven't they?

Yes, Wisconsin has been an offensive line factory for the NFL for the last several years. I think he'll be solid at Arkansas. They are only a year removed from a high powered Petrino offense, the talent is still there; a solid OC hire can make good use of it. Its interesting that sperry makes that comment though, because its exactly what I was saying about Kentucky football before the Stoops hire. Rightly or wrongly, hiring someone like Bielema (or Stoops in the UK situation) indicates a desire and willingness to compete toe to toe for SEC championships. It may not happen, but it does display the dedication to make it happen. A gimmick offense will be flashy and win some games, but it will lose some games and knock you out of the title hunt. By commiting to Bielema's style, Arkansas has signaled their fans that they want to be serious about winning football.

Good hire, don't know that there'd be anyone better out there for them.

Word out of Bristol is that Alvarez may coach the Badgers in the Rose Bowl. That would be a fun storyline to follow for the next few weeks.

DP, what's your opinion on the Malzhan hire?

Lastly, apparently Charlie Strong will make some sort of announcement today. No one seems to know which direction he will go.

Yes, Wisconsin has been an offensive line factory for the NFL for the last several years. I think he'll be solid at Arkansas. They are only a year removed from a high powered Petrino offense, the talent is still there; a solid OC hire can make good use of it. Its interesting that sperry makes that comment though, because its exactly what I was saying about Kentucky football before the Stoops hire. Rightly or wrongly, hiring someone like Bielema (or Stoops in the UK situation) indicates a desire and willingness to compete toe to toe for SEC championships. It may not happen, but it does display the dedication to make it happen. A gimmick offense will be flashy and win some games, but it will lose some games and knock you out of the title hunt. By commiting to Bielema's style, Arkansas has signaled their fans that they want to be serious about winning football.

Good hire, don't know that there'd be anyone better out there for them.

Word out of Bristol is that Alvarez may coach the Badgers in the Rose Bowl. That would be a fun storyline to follow for the next few weeks.

DP, what's your opinion on the Malzhan hire?

Lastly, apparently Charlie Strong will make some sort of announcement today. No one seems to know which direction he will go.

i think it was the smart move. like i mentioned, he is well familiar with the program and many of the players there. the team is 3 recruiting classes deep with the type of players that are required to run his system. wallace, even more so than frazier, seems tailored to his style of offense. defensively, i really hope to keep van gorder and martinez but malzahn may want his own guys. we are a little small on defense to play the way that van gorder would like to but we can recruit to that.

word on the street is that malzahn wanted there to be more discipline but chizik was all about entitlement and coddling particular players. i've heard that this was the crux of the falling out that malzahn had with chizik. i still can't wrap my head around the fact that i've heard that the weight room was optional under chizik.

i guess it is going to boil down to who he keeps and who he replaces on the staff. i imagine that he will be calling the offense which means that we won't need a traditional OC...a lot of questions still but i feel like we can have success with malzahn at the helm.

Malzahn is a great hire for Auburn. What I still don't understand is why he went to Arky State, unless he expected Chizik to fail so badly that he wanted to go to a program where he could leave after a year or two to get back to the Tigers. In which case, that is awesome, and Machiavellian, and awesomely Machiavellian.

Yes, Wisconsin has been an offensive line factory for the NFL for the last several years. I think he'll be solid at Arkansas. They are only a year removed from a high powered Petrino offense, the talent is still there; a solid OC hire can make good use of it. Its interesting that sperry makes that comment though, because its exactly what I was saying about Kentucky football before the Stoops hire. Rightly or wrongly, hiring someone like Bielema (or Stoops in the UK situation) indicates a desire and willingness to compete toe to toe for SEC championships. It may not happen, but it does display the dedication to make it happen. A gimmick offense will be flashy and win some games, but it will lose some games and knock you out of the title hunt. By commiting to Bielema's style, Arkansas has signaled their fans that they want to be serious about winning football.

Good hire, don't know that there'd be anyone better out there for them.

Word out of Bristol is that Alvarez may coach the Badgers in the Rose Bowl. That would be a fun storyline to follow for the next few weeks.

DP, what's your opinion on the Malzhan hire?

Lastly, apparently Charlie Strong will make some sort of announcement today. No one seems to know which direction he will go.

I'm not talking about a Gimmick offense. I'm talking about a good offense. Alabama and LSU can win with their dumpster fire offenses because they have multiple first round draft picks everywhere outside the offensive skill positions, and particularly along the lines. You aren't getting those guys to Arkansas, because there just aren't that many of them. If you try to emulate Alabama and LSU, you're just going to end up as another Miss St., Auburn, Ole Miss, etc., who plays solid defense, and loses a ton of games because they can't score any points.

If you run a dynamic offense, you have a chance. The SEC defenses are often dramatically overrated because they play teams that can't move the ball weak in and weak out. It's also easier to recruit good skill players than elite offensive and defensive linemen, because there are a lot more of them out there.

Bielema has a ceiling of about 8-4 to 9-3 every year, with losses every year to Bama and LSU. If Arkie fans are okay with this, then more power to them, but I don't think they will be.

Perhaps, but Nick Saban and Les Miles were both Big Ten guys who did okay. Was LSU much better off than Arkansas before they came?

Houston Nutt won west division titles at Arkansas and never had trouble attracting talent to Fayetteville. There was a stable if talented running backs and a good handful of QBs playing for the Hogs for the last decade. I wouldn't write them off just yet!

holy shit the last thread got a storm of replies I couldn't keep up with!

I'm not terribly surprised that Monte Kiffin is leaving USC, but I'd rather keep Monte and get a new Offensive Coordinator than keep Lane as OC. Hopefully Haden is going to force Lane to hire an OC as well. That will be interesting as Haden will have a big hand in that because he will be wanting to stack the deck on DC and OC so that if he has to let Lane go before the time is ideal (see below) he can have strong competition on which of the two to promote to replace him.

As for Lane, I think he is okay for a couple more years, with maybe a one year interim head coach before USC has a permanent new hire.

Here's why: we've only had one year of scholarship reductions, Lane is about to preside over a class with a second year of scholarship reductions. That means our true freshman and a good chunk of our redshirt freshmen and sophmores are terribly reduced. After this year, in that category we will only have 30 players on scholarship.

So think of the 'three year rule' that a coach at a big time program has to prove himself by his third year, If a coach were to replace Lane Kiffin right now, in three years he would only have 30 (or fewer, because there will be transfers and stars that bolt for the draft!) jrs or srs on scholarship in his CRUCIAL third year. That makes that 'third year' pretty much impossible.

Instead I think a coach will want to come in where in his third year he'll have the first class of 25 becoming Jrs or Srs, no coach will want to come in where his third year will have a class of 15 becoming Jrs or Srs. That means a permanent coaching change is probably not going to happen at USC for a couple years. If next season is awful, lacking in a bowl season or fewer than 8 wins with a bowl game then Kiffin is out and an interim coach will replace him. But I think so long as Kiffin gets 8 wins (with the bowl win) he will last one more year to see the final class of 15 signees in spring of 2014. That means the 2014 season will likely be Kiffin's last, that season will have the fewest players on scholarship and USC will be lucky to collect any conference win; since no alumni will understand the limitations, nor will Kiffin accrue any good will for seeing USC through this seemingly impossible nightmare of reductions, it means that Kiffin will be fired at the end of the 2014 season.

The class signed in the spring of 2015 will be the first class of 25, however it's possible that USC will use one of their coordinators as a one year interim head coach if a coach of suitable prestige is not available. This is in all likelyhood a stalling tactic, because if the 2015 season is headed by an interim head coach, that means that the new permanent coach would come in to head the 2016 season and sign another class of 25 before he's played a game. In his second season he'll sign another class of 25 and USC could potentially have 75 players on scholarship just with the three youngest classes (presuming a lot of transfers and early drafts after Kiffin and the interim guy), in his third year, the 2018 season--which will be the first season where it is realistically possible that USC could return to full strength of scholarship--he would have an extremely strong chance of success, but if his third year is 2017 he'll have a much more limited chance of success. 2018 or 2019 will be the first year that USC no longer feels the effects of the scholarship limitations because the final students signed in the 2013 and 2014 classes will have left the program by those seasons, and it is those 2018 and 2019 seasons that USC will be trying to time a new coach's third year to occur in. It'd be much better for USC to have continuity throughout the the full range of scholarship reductions by keeping Kiffin around as a lame duck than to hire a new coach now--a coach that will preside over three awful years in the 2013, 2014, and 2015 seasons and will inevitably be fired after 2015. the fewer coaching transitions the better, imo.